The interpretation of words and terms of International Treaties. Linguistic tools and the choices of Courts

Journal title PARADIGMI
Author/s Diego Femia
Publishing Year 2016 Issue 2016/1 Language Italian
Pages 15 P. 11-25 File size 195 KB
DOI 10.3280/PARA2016-001002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Interpretation in international law is a topical issue. This paper describes the treaties interpretation practice of the World Trade Organization and focuses on the WTO’s use of dictionaries in order to interpret words and terms of the multilateral treaties. Taking into account the different levels of linguistic analysis necessarily involved, the author traces the dimensions of the phenomenon and, through the definition of a research form, conducts an initial analysis of these interpretive practices and presents some results of this study.

Keywords: Dictionaries, juridical discourse, linguistic vagueness, ordinary meaning, treaty interpretation, WTO

  1. Appellate Body Report (1996). United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (US – Gasoline). WT/DS2/AB/R.
  2. Id. (1999). Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (Canada – Aircraft). WT/DS70/AB/R.
  3. Id. (1999). India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products (India – Quantitative Restrictions). WT/DS90/AB/R.
  4. Id. (2000). United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (US – FSC). WT/DS108/AB/R.
  5. Id. (2001). European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos (EC – Asbestos). WT/DS135/AB/R.
  6. Id. (2004). United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (US – Softwood Lumber IV). WT/DS257/AB/R.
  7. Id. (2005). United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (US – Gambling). WT/DS285/AB/R.
  8. Arbitration Report (2002). United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (US – FSC). WT/DS108/ARB.
  9. Coco A. e Femia D. (2009). Fonti lessicografiche come mezzi complementari di interpretazione. L’uso del dizionario nella giurisprudenza WTO. Mediazioni, 7: 1-17.
  10. de Carvalho E.M. (2007). The Decisional Juridical Discourse of the Appellate Body of the WTO: Among Treaties and Dictionaries as Referents. Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 20: 327-352, DOI: 10.1007/s11196-007-9049-x
  11. Id. (2011). Semiotics of International Law: Trade and Translation. Dordrecht: Springer, DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9011-9
  12. De Mauro T. (1999). Introduzione. In: De Mauro T., a cura di. Grande Dizionario Italiano dell’Uso. Torino: Utet: I-XLII.
  13. Id. (2005). La fabbrica delle parole: il lessico e problemi di lessicologia. Torino: Utet
  14. Eskridge W.N. Jr. (1990). The New Textualism. Ucla Law Review, 37: 621-91.
  15. Hobbs P. (2011). Defining the law: (Mis)using the Dictionary to Decide Cases. Discourse Studies, 13(3): 327-347, DOI: 10.1177/1461445611400538
  16. Kalinowski G. (1974). Sur les langages respectifs du législateur, du juge et de la loi. Archives de Philosophie du Droit, 19: 63-74.
  17. Mavroidis P. (2006). Looking for Mr and Mrs Right: Ten Years of the Appellate Body at the WTO. In: Sacerdoti G., Yanovich A. and Bohanes J., eds., The WTO at Ten. The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 348-359.
  18. Panel Report (1996). Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II). WT/DS8/R.
  19. Id. (2011). China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (China – Raw Materials). WT/DS394/R.
  20. Pavot D. (2013). The Use of Dictionary by the WTO Appellate Body: Beyond the Search of Ordinary Meaning. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 4(1): 29-46, DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/ids009
  21. Petrilli R. (2013). Semiologia e diritto. In: Gualdo R. e Petrilli R., a cura di. Diritto, linguaggio e letteratura. Perugia: Guerra: 51-70.
  22. Pierce R.J. Jr. (1995). The Supreme Court’s New Hypertextualism: An Invitation to Cacophony and Incoherence in the Administrative State. Columbia Law Review, 95: 749-95.
  23. Poggi F. (2007). Contesto e significato letterale. In: Comanducci P. e Guastini R., a cura di. Analisi e diritto 2006. Ricerche di giurisprudenza analitica. Torino: Giappichelli: 169-213.
  24. Sacco R. (2002). L’interprétation des textes juridiques rédigés dans plus d’une langue. Torino: L’Harmattan Italia.
  25. Sagri M.T. e Tiscornia D. (2009). Le peculiarità del linguaggio giuridico. Problemi e prospettive nel contesto multilingue europeo. Mediazioni, 7: 1-28.
  26. Sinclair I.M. (1984). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Manchester: University Press.
  27. Thumma S.A. and Kirchmeier J.L. (1999). The Lexicon Has Become a Fortress: The United States Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries. Buffalo Law Review, 47: 227-302.
  28. Solan L.M. (2003). Finding Ordinary Meaning in the Dictionary. In: Robinson M., ed., Language and the Law: Proceedings of a Conference, Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein & Co.: 255-278.
  29. Id. (2005). The New Textualists’ New Text. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 38(5): 2027-2062.
  30. Van Damme I. (2010). Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body. The European Journal of International Law, 21, 3: 605-648, DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chq049
  31. Weiss J.L. (1988). Jurisprudence by Webster’s: The Role of the Dictionary in Legal Thought. Mercer Law Review, 39: 961-76.
  32. Werbach K. (1994). Looking it Up: The Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries in Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation. Harvard Law Review, 107: 1437.
  33. Zang D. (2006). Textualism in GATT/WTO Jurisprudence: Lessons for the Constitutionalization Debate. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 33: 393-444.

Diego Femia, Interpretare parole e termini di trattati internazionali: utensili linguistici e scelte dei giudici in "PARADIGMI" 1/2016, pp 11-25, DOI: 10.3280/PARA2016-001002